"Firstly, the Russian invasion was and is illegal by the standards of international law."
Not according to Scott Ritter:
"Under Article 51, there can be no doubt as to the legitimacy of Russia’s contention that the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass had been subjected to a brutal eight-year-long bombardment that had killed thousands of people.… Moreover, Russia claims to have documentary proof that the Ukrainian Army was preparing for a massive military incursion into the Donbass which was pre-empted by the Russian-led “special military operation.” [OSCE figures show an increase of government shelling of the area in the days before Russia moved in.]
..The bottom line is that Russia has set forth a cognizable claim under the doctrine of anticipatory collective self-defense, devised originally by the U.S. and NATO, as it applies to Article 51 which is predicated on fact, not fiction.
While it might be in vogue for people, organizations, and governments in the West to embrace the knee-jerk conclusion that Russia’s military intervention constitutes a wanton violation of the United Nations Charter and, as such, constitutes an illegal war of aggression, the uncomfortable truth is that, of all the claims made regarding the legality of pre-emption under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine is on solid legal ground.”
Neither I nor Ritter are lawyers specializing in international law. The UN Charter contains an inherent contradiction highlighted by Lavrov a few months ago. Firstly, the charter stands for territorial integrity. It also declares a right for an oppressed minority to achieve their own political autonomy. This requires carving out a new nation from existing national territory, which violates "territorial integrity".
Different power blocks advocate for whichever element of the charter achieves their geopolitical ends. Take Kosovo/Serbia (ie. Yugoslavia) [NATO yes] and then Catalonia/Spain [NATO no] as recent cases.
The situation of the Russian assistance to the DPR+LPR and invasion of Ukraine is more complex. The assistance to DPR+LPR is legitimate under Article 51. The invasion of Kherson and Zaparozhia, and then Kharkiv is different. The conquering of parts of these other oblasts facilitate the support of the DPR+LPR but are themselves direct territorial invasions. The invasions are what I am referring to in the "illegal" part of the article. The support of DPR+LPR is legitimate, to my analysis, based on article 51, but not the others.
I am partial to the position proposed by Ritter. However, I must read the charter and apply it within the scope of actions as best I can. Hence, my declaration of "illegal". DPR+LPR, okay; the rest, no.
Thank you for your detailed comment. I repeat, I am not a lawyer.
"Firstly, the Russian invasion was and is illegal by the standards of international law."
Not according to Scott Ritter:
"Under Article 51, there can be no doubt as to the legitimacy of Russia’s contention that the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass had been subjected to a brutal eight-year-long bombardment that had killed thousands of people.… Moreover, Russia claims to have documentary proof that the Ukrainian Army was preparing for a massive military incursion into the Donbass which was pre-empted by the Russian-led “special military operation.” [OSCE figures show an increase of government shelling of the area in the days before Russia moved in.]
..The bottom line is that Russia has set forth a cognizable claim under the doctrine of anticipatory collective self-defense, devised originally by the U.S. and NATO, as it applies to Article 51 which is predicated on fact, not fiction.
While it might be in vogue for people, organizations, and governments in the West to embrace the knee-jerk conclusion that Russia’s military intervention constitutes a wanton violation of the United Nations Charter and, as such, constitutes an illegal war of aggression, the uncomfortable truth is that, of all the claims made regarding the legality of pre-emption under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine is on solid legal ground.”
Kiwi Veritas,
Neither I nor Ritter are lawyers specializing in international law. The UN Charter contains an inherent contradiction highlighted by Lavrov a few months ago. Firstly, the charter stands for territorial integrity. It also declares a right for an oppressed minority to achieve their own political autonomy. This requires carving out a new nation from existing national territory, which violates "territorial integrity".
Different power blocks advocate for whichever element of the charter achieves their geopolitical ends. Take Kosovo/Serbia (ie. Yugoslavia) [NATO yes] and then Catalonia/Spain [NATO no] as recent cases.
The situation of the Russian assistance to the DPR+LPR and invasion of Ukraine is more complex. The assistance to DPR+LPR is legitimate under Article 51. The invasion of Kherson and Zaparozhia, and then Kharkiv is different. The conquering of parts of these other oblasts facilitate the support of the DPR+LPR but are themselves direct territorial invasions. The invasions are what I am referring to in the "illegal" part of the article. The support of DPR+LPR is legitimate, to my analysis, based on article 51, but not the others.
I am partial to the position proposed by Ritter. However, I must read the charter and apply it within the scope of actions as best I can. Hence, my declaration of "illegal". DPR+LPR, okay; the rest, no.
Thank you for your detailed comment. I repeat, I am not a lawyer.